fenics team mailing list archive

["Theodore Omtzigt" <theo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

CAD geometry is specified in terms of primitive shapes and Boolean
operators. A "geometry engine" is the black box that defines some set of
primitives and operators to construct arbitrary shapes and the ability to
determine if a point is inside/outside or on the surface. Typically the
geometry engine also provides the ability to extract a surface mesh for
display.

I am becoming comfortable with the task of generating a mesh generator (or
better said: rip one off from CGAL or CAMAL), and I understand the GUI
issues. I don't comprehend the amount of work of the other two you
mentioned: the variational formulation and the solver. The solution I was
thinking along is that of a two domain solver where one iteratively solves
the fluid flow, extracts the boundary conditions, and applies them to the
structure. I haven't found any material that describes a coupled system yet.
Are you aware of such a reference?

Theo  

-----Original Message-----
From: fenics-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:fenics-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of 'Anders Logg'
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 4:12 PM
To: fenics-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [FEniCS-dev] AMR

On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 04:08:15PM -0500, Theodore Omtzigt wrote:
> 
> Yes, but putting the pieces together to make that happen would be
> non-trivial.
> 
> /Anders
> 
> 
> Is it non-trivial due to the lack of a geometry engine, or the lack of
> moving grid functionality, or something else?
> 
> Theo

I don't really know what you mean by "geometry engine", but you will
have to write a substantial amount of code to put everything together:
mesh, variational formulation of the fluid-structure interaction
problem, solvers etc, not to mention the graphical user interface for
interacting with the mesh.

/Anders
_______________________________________________
FEniCS-dev mailing list
FEniCS-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/fenics-dev